Many scientists argue that the rainforest ecosystem should be considered a trust of humanity, similar to the status of Antarctica and the oceans. Does this sentiment conflict with our notion of national sovereignty? In other words, who should control the Amazon rainforest?
Brazil should have control over the Amazon. Regardless of the fact that the rainforest impacts the world, we cannot just take away the rainforest from Brazil without the consent of the country. However, there should be restrictions to the extent of development. Nations should understand that Brazil’s economy and exports heavily depends on its forest. Therefore, putting restrictions unconditionally is unreasonable, ineffective, and may also infringe upon the country’s sovereignty. It will be logical for the United Nations to support and encourage the nation by giving subsidies that will help Brazil develop other industries that will not necessarily exploit the rainforest. Moreover, the damages caused by the destruction of the forest should be well publicized to the people of Brazil, although this campaign may not elicit immediate effects.
Note that Brazil’s carbon dioxide emissions per capital from fossil fuel consumption were 9 percent of U.S. contributions per capita in 2004. In light of their (your) high levels of consumption and their (your) past destruction of much of America’s forest, do they (you) 9have the right to protest the policies of Brazil?
It may seem hypocritical for our nation to be advising and protesting the policies of Brazil. However, people have to realize that the United States does not have a natural site that is as crucial as the rainforest of Brazil. Moreover, our country tries its best to preserve the nature for places that are in need or worthy of protection and preservation. Also, the United States cannot suddenly cut its pollution. As the leading nation of the world, the US has great responsibility to develop and maintain its development. However, the abrupt efforts to save the environment will most likely destabilize the nation. Currently, the US is in an economic crisis and the last thing we need is more instability. Moreover, the US is trying to be more green in many industries and is trying to develop alternative energy resources, including the expansion of the forest in North America.
How does the United States contribute to the destruction of the rainforest (e.g., role of American trans- national corporations, demand in the United States for wood, beef, and other agricultural products, etc.)? What role should the United States play, if any, in addressing this issue?
Brazil should have control over the Amazon. Regardless of the fact that the rainforest impacts the world, we cannot just take away the rainforest from Brazil without the consent of the country. However, there should be restrictions to the extent of development. Nations should understand that Brazil’s economy and exports heavily depends on its forest. Therefore, putting restrictions unconditionally is unreasonable, ineffective, and may also infringe upon the country’s sovereignty. It will be logical for the United Nations to support and encourage the nation by giving subsidies that will help Brazil develop other industries that will not necessarily exploit the rainforest. Moreover, the damages caused by the destruction of the forest should be well publicized to the people of Brazil, although this campaign may not elicit immediate effects.
Note that Brazil’s carbon dioxide emissions per capital from fossil fuel consumption were 9 percent of U.S. contributions per capita in 2004. In light of their (your) high levels of consumption and their (your) past destruction of much of America’s forest, do they (you) 9have the right to protest the policies of Brazil?
It may seem hypocritical for our nation to be advising and protesting the policies of Brazil. However, people have to realize that the United States does not have a natural site that is as crucial as the rainforest of Brazil. Moreover, our country tries its best to preserve the nature for places that are in need or worthy of protection and preservation. Also, the United States cannot suddenly cut its pollution. As the leading nation of the world, the US has great responsibility to develop and maintain its development. However, the abrupt efforts to save the environment will most likely destabilize the nation. Currently, the US is in an economic crisis and the last thing we need is more instability. Moreover, the US is trying to be more green in many industries and is trying to develop alternative energy resources, including the expansion of the forest in North America.
How does the United States contribute to the destruction of the rainforest (e.g., role of American trans- national corporations, demand in the United States for wood, beef, and other agricultural products, etc.)? What role should the United States play, if any, in addressing this issue?
Not DONE!!!